gambler fallacy is a fallacy
Quote: GamblorIf you didn't use propaganda techniques to deceive others and misquote me, I said I was a noob to this site/forums all together, not gambling.
Oh.... so you've already started losing lots of money.
How much are you down lifetime?
Quote: rdw4potusBaccarat is not 50/50. Are you not familiar with the rules of the game?
Anyone who denies picking one of two options is not a 50% chance is so delusional from mathmaticans fallacy they may never see the light.
Quote: GamblorAnyone who denies picking one of two options is not a 50% chance is so delusional from mathmaticans fallacy they may never see the light.
LOL!!!
If you get hit by a train, do you figure that you have a 50% chance of survival? After all, you are picking between two options. Either you survive or you don't.
Quote: GamblorAnyone who denies picking one of two options is not a 50% chance is so delusional from mathmaticans fallacy they may never see the light.
...but in baccarat banker wins 45.8% of the time, and player wins 44.6% of the time. 45.8 does not equal 44.6.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceLOL!!!
If you get hit by a train, do you figure that you have a 50% chance of survival? After all, you are picking between two options. Either you survive or you don't.
LOL you stole my go to quote for when someone asks for odds of something.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceOh.... so you've already started losing lots of money.
How much are you down lifetime?
I'm up. Between poker and baccarat, and a few hands of blackjack I have only left the casino twice with less money than going in. I went on tilt one time and had a significant loss. If I was able to keep my cool, I could have came out even or not as big a loss. Just another point in how reality differs from calculations on paper. You can't account for tilt, luck, the "ZONE",or any other real life situations that have an effect on the outcome.
Reality is not confined to numbers
Quote: GamblorI'm up. Between poker and baccarat, and a few hands of blackjack I have only left the casino twice with less money than going in. I went on tilt one time and had a significant loss. If I was able to keep my cool, I could have came out even or not as big a loss. Just another point in how reality differs from calculations on paper. You can't account for tilt, luck, the "ZONE",or any other real life situations that have an effect on the outcome.
Reality is not confined to numbers
"tilt"? You mean when the negative progression goes bad and you have the long string of losses that is expected to happen once in a while?
Forget poker. It's possible that you are beating that game (I mean, anything is possible). How about just baccarat? A lot of little wins, all wiped out and then some by that time that one you went "on tilt"? Don't worry, you are in good company.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceLOL!!!
If you get hit by a train, do you figure that you have a 50% chance of survival? After all, you are picking between two options. Either you survive or you don't.
That was pretty funny.
Quote: GamblorAnother perfect example of mathematicians fallacy. If I play long enough suggests time and future events. For you to be so arrogant to think you can predict the future with math... Then why don't you calculate some big wins with said math if it has the ability to predict the future. The quantum real world is a lot different than on paper. On a 50/50 game like baccarat, it's just as likely I will double my money as go broke. Especially if I put it all on one hand. And essentially, every hand is a new and first hand. So what you are saying is equivalent to you having a %0 chance to pick banker/player on one hand. There are so many other factors that contribute to making money and or going broke. Tilt is an example. Math cannot account for tilt, hot streaks, the zone, or anything. Math tells me what might happen. Math can Not predict the future, and those who think it can are stuck in the tight grip of MATHEMATICIANS FALLACY. Please respond on my thread if you please, that way someone might agree with me we can get in on the convo. Plus I'm a noob and it's hard to keep track of exactly where I'm posting and stuff. Also, don't get so worked up over mathematicians fallacy, it's common.
Since you obviously do not know what a mathematical fallacy is, why don't you give us all a descriptive example of one. Then we can all look up the definition of mathematical fallacy, and judge whether your description both A) meets the criteria of the fallacy, and 2) applies to gambling. You should write a book called "Getting In the Zone: Playing at the advertised Theoretical House Edge rather than the Normal Actual Disadvantage without using math." G.I.Z.T.H.E.N.A.D. for short.
Quote: SonuvabishSince you obviously do not know what a mathematical fallacy is, why don't you give us all a descriptive example of one. Then we can all look up the definition of mathematical fallacy, and judge whether your description both A) meets the criteria of the fallacy, and 2) applies to gambling. You should write a book called "Getting In the Zone: Playing at the advertised Theoretical House Edge rather than the Normal Actual Disadvantage without using math." G.I.Z.T.H.E.N.A.D. for short.
It needs a catchier name than that. I suggest TARGET.
Quote: SonuvabishSince you obviously do not know what a mathematical fallacy is, why don't you give us all a descriptive example of one. Then we can all look up the definition of mathematical fallacy, and judge whether your description both A) meets the criteria of the fallacy, and 2) applies to gambling. You should write a book called "Getting In the Zone: Playing at the advertised Theoretical House Edge rather than the Normal Actual Disadvantage without using math." G.I.Z.T.H.E.N.A.D. for short.
LOL. That's a great name for the book. Thanks.
Quote: SonuvabishWow he got banned, didn't see that coming. Cough.
Less time typing more time in the Zone.
Quote: GamblorAnyone who denies picking one of two options is not a 50% chance is so delusional from mathmaticans fallacy they may never see the light.
Um what about the Tie? Does that make every bet now 33.3% chance to win?
Quote: WizardSomebody probably already asked this, but isn't saying "the gambler fallacy is a fallacy" like saying "the pink pig is a pig?"
You're right. The proper wording might've been "The Gambler Fallacy doesn't exist"
Quote: WizardSomebody probably already asked this, but isn't saying "the gambler fallacy is a fallacy" like saying "the pink pig is a pig?"
I think that there are multiple ways to parse that. English is not a very precise language.
Quote: treetopbuddyI think the OP was trying to say that the Gamblers Fallacy is fallacious?
I think he means the idea or theory of Gamblers Fallacy isn't real.
